Raid
On Nuclear Fuel Market
By Rudo de Ruijter
08 May, 2006
Countercurrents.org
In
the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are
reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear
fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away. The US,
UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become world’s
nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers
will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get
paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans.
The problems of tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today.
Iran and the Non-Proliferation
Treaty
US President Bush wants us
to believe that Iran has plans for nuclear weapons. Well, we remember,
that in 2002 he accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction.
That turned out to be a lie, so let us look more closely at the facts.
Iran is a member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the
very first moment in 1968. [1] The NPT is a treaty not only to stop
proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to help each other to develop
civil nuclear energy. [2] In the treaty, the nuclear-weapon states (US,
Russia, China, France and England) promised nuclear disarmament. (So
far, they have not kept their promises.) The other members had to sign
agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), NPT’s
watchdog, for the implementation of controls. IAEA’s agreement
with Iran entered into force on May 15 1974. [3]
Iran’s nuclear
history
At that time shah Reza ruled
Iran. Thanks to the Anglo-US’ operation Ajax in 1953 he was still
on the throne. From 1957 Shah Reza wanted to develop nuclear energy
in Iran. [4] The US offered all the help and stuff he wanted: a research
reactor, enriched uranium and plutonium. The research reactor was started
in 1967, but went critical soon after. Then the French became good friends
too. They promised to repair the reactor. The shah made a $ 1 billion
loan to the French for the construction of an enrichment plant in Tricastin
in the South of France. From 1974 still more countries offered their
services to the shah. Agreements followed for five reactors and fuel
from France, two reactors and fuel from the US, regular purchases of
uranium from Australia and two reactors from West Germany. Denmark delivered
10 kilo of highly enriched uranium and 25 kilo of natural uranium. Technical
staff came in from Argentina and India, while Iranian students went
to UK and West Germany. Discussions took place with Pakistan and Turkey
for regional nuclear cooperation. The Iranian budget for the atomic
energy rose from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1 billion the following year,
and still more reactors were ordered from the US. By the end of 1978,
with not a single reactor completed yet, the shah ran out of money.
Meanwhile, popular opposition against the shah’s blood shedding
oppression rose to a climax.
From shah Reza to
Khomeini
The opposition against the
shah had grown since 1953, when popular hero and Prime Minister Mossadeq
had been overthrown by a joint coup of the CIA, the English and the
shah. [5] Mossadeq had successfully strived to nationalize the Anglo
Iranian Oil Company (BP). Sued by England, Mossadeq had won the case
at the International Court in The Hague. [6] During the coup, the shah
initially fled the country, but came back after the army had succeeded
to beat down the protests of the population. In 1960, to please his
American friends, he granted diplomatic immunity to all US’ personnel
working in Iran. A young opponent, called Ruhollah Khomeini dared to
criticize the shah publicly. The first time he was jailed and recidivist
a few years later he was expelled. The shah’s oppression increased
over time. In riots many hundreds of opponents were killed and thousands
injured. By 1977 all opposition movements finally united and in January
1979 the shah definitely fled the country. Khomeini returned to Iran
in triumph and on April 1st 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran was established
by referendum. In November 1979, when Iranian students heard that the
shah had gone to the US, they stormed the US embassy in Tehran to claim
the extradition of the shah in order to summon him to trial. A long
hostages crisis followed. A US’ attempt to free them failed. President
Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a good friend of the US at that time, invaded
Iran, announcing he would be in Tehran within three days. However, the
war between Iraq and Iran would last 10 years and cost hundreds of thousands
of lifes. With the end of the Warschau Pact in 1989 and Saddam’s
mistake to invade Kuwait, the US attitude toward Iraq made a 180-degree
turn. Iraq and Iran were both US’ enemies now. But since these
countries detain 10.5 and 10 percent of world’s oil reserves respectively
and the US is world’s biggest consumer (with 25 percent of world’s
oil production), it was foreseeable the US would not just ignore these
countries. The US now has less than 2 percent of world’s oil reserves.
Its dependency on foreign oil is rapidly increasing and, according to
Bush, 60 percent today. [7]
The accusations against
Iran: 130 Grams of Uranium
On June 16 2003 the International
Atomic Energy Agency announced, that Iran had not reported a uranium
import of 1991 and the subsequent stocking and processing. That is true.
But from a confidential IAEA document of June 6 2003 we learn, that
this import contained just 130 gram of uranium. [8] According to article
37 of the official agreement between the IAEA and Iran, in force since
May 15 1974, nuclear materials containing less than 1 kilo of uranium
are exempted from the IAEA safeguards. [9] The IAEA accusations made
the world believe that Iran had transgressed the rules.
Similar jousts are about
the Additional Protocol. During the embargo against Iraq, when proof
had to be found of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was not willing
to grant more rights to the UN inspectors, the IAEA had developed additional
rules to make controls easier. The new rules also make it easier to
discriminate among members: excessive rules for one country, friendly
rules for others. In June 2003 only 33 of the 188 members of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty had accepted to sign the Additional Protocol. Nevertheless the
US and a delegation of the European Union formed by France, Germany
and the United Kingdom, wanted to force Iran to sign the Additional
Protocol. In exchange, the three European countries (E3) promised to
come up with interesting commercial deals. Iran was willing to hear
what they had to propose. This is not so surprising. 30 percent of Iran’s
oil goes to Europe and 40 percent of its imports come from Europe. Spring
2003, Iran had even switched its oil sales from dollars to euros, which
is good for Europe and bad for the US, since it weakens the dollar.
During the talks about new commercial deals with the Europeans Iran
voluntarily agreed to suspend its research program for uranium enrichment
and to grant additional rights to the IAEA for extended checking of
their nuclear facilities. After repeated Iranian requests it became
clear, that the E3 countries did not intend to deliver the promised
deals. They just wanted to keep the talks going on indefinitely, meantime
preventing Iran from enriching uranium. Iran resumed its program and
re-established the contractual conditions for the IAEA controls. This
resulted in the attempt of the US and E3 to have the UN Security Council
condemn Iran.
US’ agenda:
The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
So, if the so-called proofs
against Iran appear to be fabricated, what is the real issue? I think
the general idea is clear to all. With its excessive energy consumption
the US thinks, it is necessary to have pro-US governments in Iraq, Iran
and, for the UNOCAL pipeline project, also in Afghanistan. During the
Cold War Saddam Hussein in Iraq and shah Reza in Iran were useful US’
allies, but these days are over. Thanks to Bush we now have wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is located in between. Considering the reputation
the US has built up in Iran a spontaneous arising of a pro-US government
is not likely to happen soon.
The second thing that explains
more immediately Bush aggressive stance against Iran is its part in
the weakening dollar. A new Iranian oil bourse, if successful, may even
trip up US’ hegemony. [10]
In a glance, this is how
it works. World’s oil and gas is traded in US-dollars. Since 1971
the US has had the advantage to be the petrodollar supplier of the world.
Supplying dollars to foreign countries means, the US can print money
and purchase goods, services and investments with it. Since the foreigners
need these dollars to buy oil, and keep them also in use in the international
trade outside the US, the US has never had to deliver anything in return.
Merely supplying money means free shopping. This is how US’ foreign
debt grew to 3,200,000,000,000 dollars today. And if some day the world
gets tired of the abuse and does not want US-dollars anymore, their
massive offers of dollars on the exchange markets would immediately
push the exchange rate down, the dollar would become worth next to nothing
and the foreign debt would vanish. So it is very advantageous to deliver
currencies that are permanently needed and wanted abroad.
But with today’s’
sky rocketing debt, the dollar has become vulnerable. When Saddam Hussein
switched to the euro on November 6 2000 [11, 12], the exchange markets
were temporarily overflowed by dollars. With Iran considering a similar
switch since 1999 and maybe more OPEC countries to follow [13], speculations
and decreasing trust set in motion a long and continuous descent of
the dollar, which risked leading to its collapse. [14] By the end of
2002 the dollar rate had fallen 18 percent. [15] This probably explains,
why the US could not wait and on March 20 2003 even overruled the UN
Security Council to invade Iraq. The Iraqi oil trade has been switched
back to dollars on June 6 2003. [16] From spring 2003, Iran also switched
to the euro, and during the two years that followed the dollar rate
lost another 12 percent.
The US free shopping advantage
only works insofar foreign countries need additional dollars. So, each
time when oil prices rise on US controlled International Petroleum Exchange
(IPE) of London and New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), more dollars
are needed in the world. [17] As 85 percent of the oil trade takes place
outside the US, for each extra dollar needed inside the US, seven dollars
are needed outside and result in free shopping. To increase the foreign
dollar demand still further, the US Federal Reserve sells Treasury Bonds
to foreigners, which reduces the amount of dollars abroad. This increases
foreign demand for dollars and raises the exchange rate. To stop the
exchange rate from rising continually, new dollars have to be “delivered”
to the foreigners, resulting again in free shopping. If the US wants
to lower the dollar rate it can just import more. In fact, as long as
world demand for dollars keeps growing, the US can decide itself about
the rate of their currency and enjoy free shopping. For the year 2004,
the latter represented an advantage of 3,000 dollar per US’ inhabitant.
Recently, foreigners are not so willing anymore to fuel US’ fairy
credit carrousel. The US tries to seduce them with higher interests,
but foreign demand for bonds stays insufficient. The only remaining
way to obtain enough new credit is to increase world’s demand
for dollars by making the oil prices rise on IPE and NYMEX. And that
is what is happening since mid 2004.
Here, once again, an Iranian
initiative endangers US’ credit carrousel. Iran wants to establish
an independent non-dollar oil bourse. Assuming it succeeds in creating
enough trade to establish a recognized world oil price, and assuming
they keep the price stable, oil prices on IPE and NYMEX cannot rise
freely anymore. The credit carrousel may stop. The Iranian Oil Bourse
will not only reduce the power of IPE and NYMEX, it will also have its
influence on the exchange rate between dollars and euros. If oil gets
cheaper in euros, there will be a rush on euros. And vice versa. The
US and EU both see this bourse as a risk. The opening of the Iranian
Oil Bourse had been scheduled for March 20 2006, the Iranian New Year.
It is now announced for the first week of May 2006. [18]
Seeking allies
To take measures against
Iran the US needs allies. Allies are useful for cost sharing of operations
and to let them clean up the mess, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best
way to gain allies is to have your enemies condemned by a UN Security
Council resolution. That means the US has to convince the other veto-holding
countries. Of course, that would not work, if the US disclosed its real
reasons. The US had to come up with something better, which could unite
and reward all of the veto-countries. Well, veto-countries are the victor
states of the Second World War. They happen to have in common to be
nuclear weapon states, all disposing of uranium enrichment facilities.
So how about a project to reward them with the exclusive rights for
uranium enrichment and for the supply of nuclear fuel to the non-nuclear-weapon
states? [19]
The strange European
delegation
Then, in the diplomatic stage-play
about Iran, Bush is joint by the UK, France and Germany, the so-called
E3. They would represent the European Union. This strange composition
of an EU-delegation starts to make sense, when we notice that these
countries are the European countries possessing enrichment facilities.
Camouflaged under the flag of the European Union they have their own
special interest in enrichment and reprocessing.
How European are these E3
countries? In fact, as European representatives, France and Germany
make a strange case in willing to get their trade partner Iran condemned
by the UN Security Council. It indicates they are playing poker for
high stakes. They deliberately risk disrupting an Iranian oil market
priced in euros, either through a direct conflict against Iran or by
allowing the US to obtain an embargo.
Bush, if he does not obtain
his embargo, would probably not even mind to see the Iranian power plants
under construction bombed once again, to make Iran consume its oil,
instead of selling it in euros. And what role does the UK play in this
EU-delegation? Well, with its IPE oil market always playing in symbiosis
with NYMEX, and its subsequent impossibility to adopt the euro, they
serve as the messenger-boy of the White House. As usual.
The tone of the E3 talks
with Iran is not the one you would normally expect between trade partners
who wish to improve their relations. The reports about the discussions
are long litanies of obligations the E3 seeks to impose to Iran. Iran
is treated like the naughty schoolboy, who will have to obey one way
or the other. [20] In January 2006, French President Chirac even covertly
threatened with a possible nuclear attack. Of course such an attitude
can only be counter-productive.
Russia and China
To reach a Security Council
resolution with sanctions against Iran the US, France, UK and Germany
have to convince Russia and China not to use their right of veto. Since
Russia and China are enrichment countries too, that seemed easy, but
failed until now. Russia and China do not want any armed intervention
against Iran. Russia still bears the scars of the Chernobyl catastrophe
in 1986, with hundreds of thousands of irradiated citizens, new generations
with genetic deformations, and unsolved plutonium radiation problems
for hundreds of centuries to come. It has not build any new reactors
since then. Russia has a more shaded view on world’s nuclear future.
Besides, it still has fossil energy sources. China has good relations
with Iran for the supply of oil and gas during the coming decades. If
it wants to let Iran down, it would have to foresee alternatives for
their high needs of energy. Besides, China does not seem to share the
aggressive stance of the US and the E3.
Is enrichment in
non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous?
Natural uranium contains
0.7 percent of U-235 atoms, against 99.3 percent of mostly U-238 atoms.
To use it as nuclear fuel the proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased
to 3 to 5 percent. To do so, the uranium must first be purified and
converted into a gas. In this form batteries of centrifuges can filter
out a few of the heavier U-238 atoms in a long and energy swallowing
process. Risks in the enrichment process are those of the chemical industries
and not so much the low radiation. This uranium is not suitable to make
bombs. For bombs you need a degree of enrichment of at least 90 percent.
[21] If a country, as for instance Iran, decided to develop such highly
enriched uranium, it could take 3 to 5 years to produce sufficiently
for a bomb. Besides, according to scientists, for high enrichment much
larger centrifuge facilities are used. The oft-repeated but mistaken
belief, that one could fabricate unnoticed highly enriched uranium in
a civil nuclear plant, now serves Bush’ contention that enrichment
should remain in the hands of world’s nuclear-weapon states.
Birth of a new world
order
The idea of limiting enrichment capability to the nations that already
have it is not entirely new. The accusations against Iran, the successful
misleading of journalists, politicians and diplomats had created the
ideal circumstances to speed up its realization. The idea appeared in
a UN brochure in 2004. [22] Then it was still in the form of a call
for a voluntary and time-limited moratorium on the construction of new
facilities for enrichment and reprocessing. In February 2005 the United
Nations further elaborated the idea as the Multilateral Nuclear Approach
(MNA) [23]. Already in April 2005 Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan’s
mission to the UN put the question, “if the MNA would not not
unduly affect the peaceful use of nuclear energy by those non-nuclear-weapon
states that carry out nuclear activities in faithful and transparent
compliance with their NPT obligations.”
On February 6 2006 the US’
Department of Energy announced its version of the idea in their plan
for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The following day,
at the Oarai Conference in Japan, this GNEP is presented as an idea
of IAEA’s head ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush. [24] And, of
course, such a supreme idea should not lack of glamour. So, a few days
later, DOE compliments itself as follows: “Finally, the partnership
arrangement between fuel-cycle and reactor-only states envisioned by
GNEP will help supply the world with clean electrical power by offering
non-fuel-cycle nations commercially competitive and reliable access
to nuclear fuel, in exchange for their commitment to forgo the development
of enrichment and recycling technologies. “
Questionable elements
The new world order comes in the form of new safeguards within the IAEA
control system. Considering the spirit of the Additional Protocol we
should not count on equal rights or fair relations.
Within the Non-Proliferation
Treaty countries, only the nuclear-weapon states, plus Germany, the
Netherlands and Japan have enrichment facilities today. [25] The rest
of the NPT countries would see their rights to enrich uranium taken
away. In exchange, they will get the solemn promises of the nuclear-weapon
states, that the latter will always deliver the nuclear fuel. Promises?
Weren’t these the countries that promised in 1968 to strive for
their nuclear disarmament? As we know, they did not keep their word
up to now. Worse, France has even developed a new generation of nuclear
weapons to make the step to nuclear war easier and progressive. This
year, France and the US are still using their nuclear arsenal to threaten
the world. Non-nuclear-weapon states should now give away more rights
and become dependent of IAEA’s club of nuclear fuel suppliers?
To seduce non-nuclear-weapon
states, this new plan promises lower electricity prices. Today, on a
global scale, enrichment facilities would have about twice the capacity
the world needs. By preventing the construction of new enrichment facilities,
a better use could be made of the existing capacities. This would enable
lower prices for enriched uranium, and thus of electricity… Should
we believe these words? The enrichment industries are not driven by
the concern to lower world’s electricity prices. In spite of the
world’s over-capacity the Europeans are considerably expanding
their production in the UK, Netherlands and Germany. They strive for
more market share and more profit! And if by new IAEA regulations no
new competitors are allowed on the market, this can only result in excessive
pricing of enriched uranium, and thus of electricity.
The new plans foresee a highly
regulated and closely monitored fuel supply distribution system. The
IAEA would become the intermediate between fuel producing and fuel consuming
members. At first glance this may look like a trustworthy construction,
since the IAEA is a UN body. However, the IAEA is also the policeman
in the system. I do not think it is wise to let policemen trade with
the parties they should inspect. Besides, the UN is not some sort of
democratic and integer government that would be able to guarantee their
policemen’s impartiality.
The plans for the distribution
system recommend minimal national stocks and joint regional buffers
in different host-countries. Strange, isn’t it? The purpose of
minimal stocks inside the countries and regional stocks elsewhere is
hardly to defend as a security issue. Even with enormous stocks of 3.5
percent enriched uranium you cannot produce any nuclear weapon. Why
would the IAEA want countries to dispose of only small quantities of
fuel at a time? I fear there is only one plausible answer: to keep the
non-nuclear-weapon states in a firm grip. That is a lot of power for
our NPT-watchdog. This power goes far beyond what is needed for their
inspections. Even far beyond the needs of a safe nuclear fuel distribution
system. This is pure power to overrule nations’ sovereignty. If
a nation does anything that the watchdog or its masters do not want,
the fuel tap can simply be closed to obtain its immediate submission.
It smells like a dictatorship on world-level. Of course, the fuel supplying
countries will never be affected. They produce their own fuel.
In theory the master of the
IAEA is the United Nations Organization. But does it work that way in
reality? The IAEA has a difficult role, because it cannot ignore tensions
and conflicts of interest between NPT members. The IAEA’s independence
from parties’ national interests is constantly under strain. Its
limited budget forces the IAEA to make choices, which are influenced
by occurring conflicts. During the embargo against Iraq, we witnessed
an IAEA driven crazy by Bush, who demanded each time more and more thorough
controls. The dog was sent out over and over to make sure Iraq could
be safely invaded. Although the IAEA has the obligation to keep all
sensitive information from their investigations undisclosed, the US
military constantly received sensitive information, with which they
prepared the invasion in 2003. (And finally, to invade Iraq, Bush simply
overruled the UN’s Security Council…)
Today, we see the same US’
influences in the IAEA’s investigations in Iran. Bush shouts and
the dog runs to search for the stick. The rules for the new world order
are presented as “an idea of ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.”.
I presume that both plans, the IAEA’s Multi-National Approach
(NMA) and Bush’ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), will
merge into a final version dictated by the US.
Of course, getting a firm
grip on all non-nuclear-weapon states as soon as they get addicted to
nuclear energy is a major strategic coup. But there are far more advantages
for the nuclear fuel suppliers. United under the umbrella of the IAEA,
the market will be completely regulated. As all of them cooperate in
the same organizations and all of them will be interested in the highest
possible earnings, together they will set world’s nuclear fuel
price. Just like today’s world’s oil prices are decided
on the market places of IPE and NYMEX, nuclear fuel prices will be decided
by the happy few.
Now comes the tricky part.
Nuclear fuel has to be paid for. The question is: in what currency (or
currencies) will the customers have to pay? These currencies will become
the most needed and wanted currencies in the world. You can compare
it to today’s US-dollar.
Apparently these currencies
have not been decided yet. But, if each fuel supplier asks to be paid
in its own currency, the world would widely accept Japanese yens, Chinese
Yuan renminbi, Russian Rubles, euros, English pounds and US-dollars.
There will probably be some preferential order due to each supplier’s
capacity to deliver nuclear fuel. Each of these countries will know
the advantages of the supply of their currencies to the rest of the
world. Of course, in the long run, each of them will also experience
the negative effects on their economies and, after decades, let their
currency collapse to get rid of the built up debt. In short, this is
what can happen with multiple world currencies. However, the fact that
the plans mention, that the IAEA should become the intermediary between
suppliers and customers, makes it reasonable to suppose that the IAEA
will decide in which currency the customers will have to pay. Bush surely
hopes that this will be the dollar. When nuclear fuel has to be paid
exclusively in dollars, demand for US-dollars and therewith the US hegemony
will be assured for many decades to come.
The UN theatre
With the project for a new
world order prepared discretely in the background, we now have an anti-Iranian
alliance of the US and E3. They smell the opportunity for a coup to
seize world’s nuclear fuel market. To succeed, they would just
need some legal sauce on the prohibition of uranium enrichment by non-nuclear-weapon
states, with Iran as example. And a UN Security Council resolution would
be enough, if it legalizes IAEA’s stand that it can forbid countries
to enrich uranium.
Of course, they would make
it impossible for Iran to stay within the Non-Proliferation Treaty then.
To succeed their coup, they will have to take care, that Iran does not
leave the organization before a resolution is successfully voted. For
if so, there would not be any ground for a resolution anymore. Countries
outside the Non-Proliferation treaty, like Israel, India, Pakistan,
Cuba and Brazil are free to enrich uranium and do what they want.
The question is: will the
US and E3 succeed in seducing Russia and China?
In the event, that such a
coup of the nuclear-weapon states would succeed, it would probably put
the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UNO under enormous strain. These
organizations might loose all credibility and see many non-nuclear-weapon
states leave. The result may be opposite to what these organizations
were designed for.
[1] NPT members:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Tracking_Ch02map.pdf
[2] NPT text:
http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html (See article IV)
[3] Agreement IAEA-Iran:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/
Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[4] Iran’s nuclear
history:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html
[5] Growing opposition against
the shah:
http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/
iran/history/growing_opposition_to_the_shah.htm
[6] Mossadeq: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/
oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php
[7] 60 percent dependency
on oil imports: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=
ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news
[8] 130 gram of uranium:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html (last line)
[9] article 37 of IAEA’s
agreement with Iran: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/
Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[10] How can the dollar collapse
in Iran?
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/
__Collapse_in_Iran/__collapse_in_iran.html
[11] Fred Eckhard stating
UN’s permission for Iraq’s switch to the euro: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/
docs/2000/20001031.db103100.doc.html
[12] Statistics of Iraqi
oil exports in euros:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/oilexports.html
[13] Colin Nunan, Petrodollar
or Petroeuro: http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm
[14] IMF warning over dollar
collapse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2097064.stm
[15] dollar rates, historical
data:
http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html
[16] Financial Times, June
5th 2003
[17] Oil markets, exemple:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_
leuffer/leuffer200410010726.asp
Speculation and fear can,
per definition, be influenced.
[18] Iranian Oil Bourse May
2006:
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=212013&n=32
[19] GNEP: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/
[20] E3 report: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/
Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf
[21] Uranium enrichment:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm
[22] UN brochure 2004: http://www.un.org/secureworld/brochure.pdf
[23] NMA expert group February
2005: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Downloads/
SMR_CRP1_SRWOSR/2005/RCM1/Add%20materials/mna-2005_web.pdf
[24] ElBaradei’s idea
and Bush’ proposal. February 7, 2006: http://www.jaea.go.jp/04/np/documents/sym05_01_endo_en.pdf
[25] Map of world’s
nuclear fuel stations:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html?set=enr